Primer

yolanda: Initial plan was
developed last Friday
... two major sections...
... Intro to provenance concepts...informal
... Second half worked out examples
... wants to use examples based on ths same general
scenario

Luc: If the examples could be
organized so that they could be expressed in different ways
this would be nice
... We want to make sure the Primer stays insync with the
schemas as they emerge. Script checks would be nice

<stain> many JS-experts who
know how to do that include-thingie?

<tlebo> automated
verification of examples "stuck in HTML" is a great idea. I'm
willing to take lead on that.

Luc: Within the context of the
primer, the ontology group should be able to give you
guidance

<stain> alternatively an
XHTML-extraction-tool could try to dump out everything say
<pre class="example">

<tlebo> +1 @stian

<Luc> respect.js allows for
inclusion of files ...

Satya: Overview comments...the
primer should cover the modeling aspects, but also the querying
aspects
... It would be helpful with a scenario like the data model
group

<Luc> respec.js allows for
inclusion of files ...

Satya: After the scenario bring
out these capabiltieis

Yolanda: Simon and I talked about
bringing out three different perspectives of provenance

<stain> <div
data-include='myDatatypes.xsd'></div>

Yolanda: Document, process, and
other perspectives views might be helpful

<satya> @Yolanda +1

Khalid: My only worry is hitting
the relationship between concepts...could we give concepts in
relationship to importance so that the reader could follow
it?

<tlebo> +1 daniel,
deemphasizing the focus on the concepts might make it more
approachable.

Yolanda: It would definitely make
the primer more usable.

<Zakim> Luc, you wanted to
ask if primer is just about model or also about PAQ

<stain> @khalidbelhajjame +1
- the other two documents are already "sequential" by
class/property, so a non-sequential prioritised example would
help

Luc: Two questions...It feels
like the primer is just about the provenance ontology, what
about the provenance of (sorry couldn't hear)

<stain> Luc: ... provenance
access and query document

Luc: Second point a number of
common relations in the data model not listed here...its
important that they are addressed.

Yolanda: I think it would be good
to have a first draft to see what needs to be improved...to
show what is shown in primer vs practice

<tlebo> pushing shortcut
aspects to Best Practices makes sense.

<tlebo> Primer: some reads a
couple of times, then moves to regularly reference the Best
Practices for design solutions to apply to their problems.

Luc: For now the primer will
focus on the core concpets of the model, but extensions
addressed later...

<tlebo> *someone

pgroth: I'd like to discuss more,
perhaps later will raise issue later

<tlebo> retweet: someone
reads the Primer a couple of times, then moves to regularly
reference the Best Practices Document to get design solutions
and apply them to their problems.

Renaming Deliverables

<pgroth> Proposed: Drop
'formel model' name for referring to the semantic web
ontology

pgroth: comments on this?

<satya> briefly discussed
during ontology call

<jcheney> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<stain> +1

<Curt> +1

<satya> +1

<zednik> +1

<tlebo> +1 x10^5; I suggest
renaming it to "PROV OWL Encoding"

+1

<kai> +1

<YolandaGil> +1

<pgroth> APPROVED: Drop
'formel model' name for referring to the semantic web
ontology

pgroth: approved

<satya> PROV Ontology Model
(also PROV ontology)

<khalidbelhajjame> Paolo
isn't on the call, but he was suggesting PROV-Onto

pgroth: Put suggested name on the
mailing list vote next week

OWL Ontology

<tlebo> does anyone know
which issue the formal renaming is?

pgroth: satya review of
ontology

<stain> I don't think there
is an official issue yet for the name

Satya: requested reviews,
feedback and comments yesterday
... Covered all sections we planned to do, lots of editing
ahead, ready for review from end to end.
... Jcheney acting as user perpsective reviewer

<tlebo> (what is the subject
of the email proposing the Formal Model rename? It's buried
:-)

Satya: need to formalize concepts
in OWL framework and explain how it can be used by another
ontology
... Describe the inferences given that its an OWL ontology

tlebo: discussion starts with
named graphs...
... named graphs are just by reference not value
... shows how named graphs are represented and model provenance
accounts using named graphs
... named metagraphs are pairs of graphs, not commonly
practiced in the rdf community
... One graph naming another, draw distinction where these
graphs are (metagraphs)
... example uses: cache a graph off the web storing it in your
local graph
... important distinction from traditional named graph
communities, is that it is part of RDF as well as a SPARQL
endpoint
... let me know if you have any comments or suggestions

Luc: It looks very clear, what is
the implication of this in the ontology?

Tlebo: Needs to be an assertion
process execution
... subclasses within classes of ontology

Luc: in the abstract model have
assertions made by two entities that are complements of each
other. How would it work in this context? Is it only available
at the RDF level?
... Would there be any constructs any assertions belong to a
given account?

<satya> That overlaps with
notion of a container structure containing a set of assertions,
hence belonging to the container

<khalidbelhajjame> I think
the short answer to Luc's question is no.

<satya> @Tim: Right - which
is also supported by SPARQL

Tlebo: there would be a way of
specifying a named graph that was asserted.

<khalidbelhajjame> Luc, you
are right

Luc: The account isn't at the owl
level?

<pgroth> but they will be

Tlebo: writing up at the owl
level

sandro: (hard to hear)
... is the notion of named graphs also assuming nothing is
changed?

tlebo: quite the opposite
changing all the time
... account asserted at a particular time.
... these things can move, they don't have to
... you can serialize that named graph and make it an
annotation for your account., you don't have to for that
account assertion

sandro: formal definition of
named graph?

tlebo: specification of a subset
of an RDF named graph
... location is important here, it is a location, and the
constant can change at any time

sandro: (can't hear)

pgroth: working with Richard and
working through this notion in the provenance rdf list

Luc: Tim, have you seen that in
the data model accounts they can be hierarchical?

<satya> No, containment
relation for nested accounts

Tlebo: I wasn't aware of the
hierarchy, but will make sure nesting is accounted for

<satya> in RDF

satya: Luc and Tim if you read
account, talks about scoping the identities and semantic
constraints. They have global context cannot scope

Tlebo: Because we are using URI
we control what we are talking about

Satya: WIll point Tim to existing
work...

Luc: we need to be careful when
we say we can't scope identifiers. What we are scoping is
saying one thing about another resource...

Satya: I'll defer this to
email...

Luc: We need to be careful when
we refer to entity or resources.., please flag any unclear
sentences

<Luc> @tlebo, it's nice work
indeed, thanks

<stain> I'll poke Daniel

<khalidbelhajjame> Also, we
added a class Recipe

ericstephan: (sorry scribe was
distracted Satya)

<pgroth> First Public Working
Drafts

<Luc> @satya: there is an
attribute location

<tlebo> satya: we need a
property to associate Entity to Location, so we are gearing up
to propose prov:hadLocation domain Entity range Location .

pgroth: we need to get people
interested in and get feedback..releasing ontology and model at
the same time...whats the schedule?

<Luc> @satya: ... and the
qualifiers are in the DM

pgroth; volunteers for promoting first public
working draft?

<satya> @Luc: as Tim said, we
need two terms - a term for location and a property for linking
to location (maybe that is covered by notion of qualifier)

pgroth: blog posts or
illustrative blog posts

<khalidbelhajjame> Yes, I ll
be interested in doing so

<satya> @Luc: From Account
current description: "Account expressions constitue a scope for
identifiers" where identifiers I interpret to be URI

Yes I agree Paul

<stain> I would be willing to
promote as well

<Christine> I agree too

pgroth: status of
questionaire?

<stain> excuse to wake up ye
old blog..

zednik: should have a large
influx from responses...getting it out there havent assessed
feedback.

<stain> we can just tweet
it

<jcheney> I'd be happy to
send survey/FPWD announcment to research data management and
DCC mailing lists.